The CAMS Approach to Working with Suicidal Patients

The Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) is a novel clinical protocol designed to quickly identify and effectively engage suicidal outpatients in their own clinical care. The CAMS approach emphasizes a thorough and collaborative assessment of the patient's suicidality that then leads to problem-solving treatment planning that is coauthored by the clinician and the patient. This approach is specifically designed to launch a strong therapeutic alliance creating an effective treatment trajectory. The CAMS approach is designed to modify and change clinician behaviors in terms of how they initially identify, engage, conceptualize, assess, treatment plan, and manage suicidal outpatients. Critically, however, CAMS does not usurp clinical judgment or dictate treatment modality. Preliminary research has shown that CAMS leads to faster resolution of suicidality and may decrease nonmental health medical utilization. Given the challenges of clinical work with suicidality, increased concerns about malpractice liability, and the decreased use of inpatient hospitalization, CAMS provides a potentially important new approach to working with suicidal individuals on an outpatient basis.     

工读学生与普通学生对责任判断的比较研究

用内隐联想测验对40名工读学生与普通学生的责任判断进行比较研究,结果表明:工读学生比普通学生辨别攻击词以及与"责任在他"有关的短语的反应时短;工读学生辨别与"责任在他"有关的短语的速度比辨别与"责任在我"有关的短语的速度快,而普通学生辨别与"责任在他"有关的短语的速度比辨别与"责任在我"有关的短语的速度要慢;工读学生在"责任在他—攻击,责任在我-不攻击"的联合辨别反应时上比普通学生短。这些反应时的差异反映了工读学生存在着敌意归因与对攻击信念的内隐联想。     

注意对冲突责任判断的影响的实验研究

工读学生是介于普通学生与少年犯之间的一个社会群体。已有研究表明,工读学生在冲突中比一般人有更多的冲动攻击行为。责任判断是对攻击行为有重要影响的认知过程,文章比较了工读学生与普通学生在不同注意条件下(注意分配与注意集中)的责任的判断情况,发现不同的注意状况对不同的被试的责任判断有着不同的影响。     

论保密义务与诚信原则

尊重患者隐私,保守执业秘密,是医师的道德义务,也是法律义务,保密义务的理论基础在于诚实信用原则.为此,医疗活动中应引入体现伦理道德要求的诚信理念,从道德和法律两方面规范医师的行为,并且建立以法律规范为主的规制模式.     

骨髓捐献人中途拒捐的民事责任探析——基于信赖保护的视角

基于捐献行为的公益性、单务性和人身性,各国法律赋予捐献人任意撤销权,但是出于对捐献人允诺的信赖而改变自身处境的接受人利益也应该得到保护.从信赖保护的视角出发,在血型高分辨检测之前,捐献人一旦签订了捐献协议,即负有保护接受人信赖利益的义务,捐献人虽然有权中途拒捐,但应当承担信赖赔偿责任.     

No Blame No Gain? From a No Blame Culture to a Responsibility Culture in Medicine

Healthcare systems need to consider not only how to prevent error, but how to respond to errors when they occur. In the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, one strand of this latter response is the ‘No Blame Culture’, which draws attention from individuals and towards systems in the process of understanding an error. Defences of the No Blame Culture typically fail to distinguish between blaming someone and holding them responsible. This article argues for a ‘responsibility culture’, where healthcare professionals are held responsible in cases of foreseeable and avoidable errors. We demonstrate how healthcare professionals can justifiably be held responsible for their errors even though they work in challenging circumstances. We then review the idea of ‘responsibility without blame’, applying this to cases of error in healthcare. Sensitive to the undesirable effects of blaming healthcare professionals and to the moral significance of holding individuals accountable, we argue that a responsibility culture has significant advantages over a No Blame Culture due to its capacity to enhance patient safety and support medical professionals in learning from their mistakes, while also recognising and validating the legitimate sense of responsibility that many medical professionals feel following avoidable error, and motivating medical professionals to report errors.